Get Conversions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the functional behavior of page-level breakdown, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, or pagination. Since annotations cover the core safety aspects, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with no redundant content. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a single distinguishing capability. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the existence of an output schema (not shown) that presumably describes return values, the description does not need to explain response format. The description covers the core functionality and the key optional breakdown feature. For a tool with 6 parameters but only 2 required, this is sufficient; the schema fills in the parameter details, and the annotations cover safety.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters including 'breakdown_by_page', 'goal', and 'page' are documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'can break down by page' adds a slight contextual hint but largely repeats what the schema already provides. Thus, the added value over the schema is minimal, warranting the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('goal conversion rates and counts'), and adds the distinguishing capability 'Can break down by page to see which pages drive conversions.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_timeseries or get_breakdown, which focus on different aggregations or dimensions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (get_timeseries, get_breakdown, compare_periods). It does not mention alternatives or exclude specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema and context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.